SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4102-16T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PETER DICKSON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

Argued May 15, 2018 – Decided June 12, 2018

Before Judges Reisner and Mayer.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Middlesex County, Municipal 

Appeal No. 23-2016.

Mitchell J. Ansell argued the cause for 

appellant (Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC, 

attorneys; Mitchell J. Ansell, of counsel and 

on the brief). 

Joie D. Piderit argued the cause for 

respondent (Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County 

Prosecutor, attorney; Joie D. Piderit, 

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the 

brief). 

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-4102-16T2

Defendant Peter Dickson, Jr. appeals from an April 20, 2017 

order of the Law Division vacating a March 1, 2016 order of the

Monroe municipal court dismissing two complaints. We affirm.

On October 17, 2015, New Jersey State Trooper Michael A. 

Heliotis issued two complaints-summonses for motor vehicle 

violations to defendant. The first complaint charged defendant 

with driving while intoxicated, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, and the second 

complaint charged defendant with driving while license suspended,

N.J.S.A. 39:3-40.

1 The complaints listed Monroe as the 

municipality where the infractions occurred. Defendant pleaded 

not guilty to the Monroe tickets. 

On January 11, 2016, the Monroe Township municipal court 

administrator contacted Heliotis, ex parte, explaining the 

violations occurred in South Brunswick, not Monroe.2 The 

administrator instructed the trooper to reissue the Monroe tickets 

from South Brunswick.

 

1 We refer to these complaints as the Monroe tickets.

2 Substantive communications regarding municipal court matters

should be on notice to all counsel and all parties. Ex parte 

communications of a consequential nature in municipal court should 

be avoided. 
3 A-4102-16T2

On or about January 25, 2016, Heliotis issued two new 

complaints-summonses from South Brunswick.

3 The South Brunswick 

tickets were identical to the Monroe tickets, except for 

designating the municipality where the infractions occurred. The 

date on the South Brunswick tickets was October 17, 2015, although 

the South Brunswick tickets were actually issued three months 

later.

On February 25, 2016, the Monroe municipal prosecutor signed 

a "request to dismiss or void complaint" form related to the Monroe 

tickets. The Monroe municipal prosecutor made a note to the file 

regarding the dismissal of the Monroe tickets. The note read: 

On February 24, 2016[,] we spoke with Mr. 

Dickson's new attorney, . . . and confirmed 

that this matter is being transferred to South 

Brunswick by way of an "administrative 

dismissal" of the E-tickets which 

inadvertently contained the incorrect 

municipal code. We further explained that the 

matter will proceed via the new E-tickets 

issued by the same trooper containing the 

correct municipal code. We confirmed with 

[defense counsel] that this is not a dismissal 

of the charges or an adjudication of the 

matter and that it should not be misconstrued 

as same.

On March 1, 2016, the Monroe municipal court judge dismissed 

the Monroe tickets without prejudice. Counsel were not present 

 

3 We refer to these complaints as the South Brunswick tickets.
4 A-4102-16T2

in court on this date. The Monroe municipal court judge read the 

note from the Monroe municipal prosecutor into the record. The

order dismissing the Monroe tickets checked the box marked 

"dismissed-other" and stated "reissued tickets to be heard in 

S[outh] Brunswick." 

On March 29, 2016, defendant appeared in South Brunswick 

municipal court. On or about April 12, 2016, defendant moved to 

dismiss the South Brunswick tickets based upon the statute of 

limitations. On May 31, 2016, the South Brunswick municipal court 

judge heard argument on defendant's motion. On June 14, 2016, the 

South Brunswick municipal court judge entered an order dismissing 

the South Brunswick tickets based upon the ninety-day statute of 

limitations, N.J.S.A. 39:5-3(b).

On June 28, 2016, the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office 

appealed the South Brunswick municipal court judge's June 14, 2016 

order to the Law Division. In filing the municipal appeal, the 

State acknowledged there were proceedings in the Monroe Township 

municipal court "that could impact upon this appeal."

The Law Division judge heard argument on the State's municipal 

appeal. The State argued the dismissal of the South Brunswick 

tickets resulted from a "ministerial malfunction" and "technical 

glitch," for which the State should not be penalized. 
5 A-4102-16T2

By order dated April 20, 2017, the Law Division judge vacated 

the Monroe municipal court's March 1, 2016 order dismissing the 

Monroe tickets, remanded the case to Monroe municipal court to 

amend the municipality designation, and directed the Monroe 

municipal court to transfer the Monroe tickets to South Brunswick. 

The judge found defendant had adequate and timely notice of the 

violations based on the Monroe tickets. He also determined 

defendant was aware, prior to March 1, 2016, that the same 

violations alleged in the Monroe tickets would be heard in the 

South Brunswick municipal court. The judge acknowledged "the 

appropriate procedure for the Monroe [m]unicipal [c]ourt was to 

amend the [Monroe tickets] and transfer the matter to South 

Brunswick. However, in an attempt to achieve the same outcome, 

the Monroe [m]unicipal [c]ourt judge erroneously dismissed the 

[Monroe tickets] with an instruction to re-file in South 

Brunswick." The Law Division judge concluded

[b]ecause the identical action against 

defendant remained open under different 

[tickets] in South Brunswick, the Monroe 

[m]unicipal [c]ourt dismissal did not start 

the 20-day clock on filing an appeal of a pretrial judgment dismissing a complaint. The 

clock only began to run when the charges were 

dismissed in the South Brunswick [m]unicipal 

[c]ourt. 

Defendant appeals from the April 20, 2017 order of the Law 

Division, arguing the Law Division judge erred in vacating the 
6 A-4102-16T2

Monroe municipal court's March 1, 2016 dismissal order, because: 

(1) that order was not designated in the State's appeal to the Law 

Division, and (2) the twenty-day deadline for the State to appeal 

the Monroe municipal court order expired on March 21, 2016.

In reviewing a judgment of the Law Division on a municipal 

appeal, we apply a sufficiency of the evidence standard. See

State v. Ugrovics, 410 N.J. Super. 482, 487 (App. Div. 2009). We

must "determine whether the findings made [by the Law Division 

judge] could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible 

evidence present in the record." State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 

162 (1964). 

The Law Division judge's "interpretation of the law and the 

legal consequences that flow from established facts are not 

entitled to any special deference." Ugrovics, 410 N.J. Super. at 

487 (quoting Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 

140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)). We review such determinations de novo. 

Id. at 487-88. 

In the unusual circumstances of this case, we find no error 

in the Law Division judge's decision to treat the without prejudice 

dismissal order of the Monroe municipal court as an interlocutory 

order, rather than a final order, until such time as the South 

Brunswick municipal court dismissed the violations against 

defendant. On this record, we further find that, in the interest 
7 A-4102-16T2

of justice, the Law Division judge properly treated the State's 

appeal as encompassing the orders of both municipal courts. Thus, 

we affirm the Law Division judge's April 20, 2017 order and direct 

that the matter be tried before the South Brunswick municipal 

court within sixty days. 

Affirmed.